https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441222 Preferential allotment funds routed through intermediary entities back to the issuer were treated as a deceptive round-tripping arrangement, because the structure created only the appearance of capital infusion and fell within fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the securities market. The Tribunal also held that penalty liability could not be imposed as a blanket joint and several burden where the noticees did not stand on the same footing and the facts did not justify collective recovery. The composite penalty direction was therefore modified to separate individual liability for the concerned appellants, while the finding of fraudulent funding was upheld. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Aug 2023 07:49:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441222 Preferential allotment funds routed through intermediary entities back to the issuer were treated as a deceptive round-tripping arrangement, because the structure created only the appearance of capital infusion and fell within fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the securities market. The Tribunal also held that penalty liability could not be imposed as a blanket joint and several burden where the noticees did not stand on the same footing and the facts did not justify collective recovery. The composite penalty direction was therefore modified to separate individual liability for the concerned appellants, while the finding of fraudulent funding was upheld. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441222